Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rolland v. Spark Energy, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 29, 2019

JANET ROLLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
SPARK ENERGY, LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Michael A. Shipp United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Spark Energy, LLC's ("Defendant") Third Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff Janet Rolland ("Plaintiff) filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on August 17, 2018. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 59), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 67).[1] The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion.

         I. Background [2]

         The parties are familiar with the matter's factual history, and therefore, the Court only repeats those facts necessary to resolve the instant motion. Plaintiff enrolled in Defendant's electricity services from February 25, 2012 to December 24, 2014. (SAC ¶¶7, 24.) Defendant offered a twelve-month low, fixed-rate for new customers. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 17.) After twelve billing cycles, Defendant placed Plaintiff on a month-to-month variable rate plan ("Variable Rate Plan"). (Id. ¶ 17.) Defendant notified Plaintiff before the last billing cycle that her initial fixed-rate services were ending and she would be automatically enrolled in the Variable Rate Plan if she did not terminate her service. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff did not respond and was automatically enrolled into the Variable Rate Plan. (Id.) The price of the Variable Rate Plan was higher than the initial fixed rate. (Id. ¶¶ 17-31.) According to Plaintiff, the variable rare jumped 108% from the introductory fixed rate at the end of the first billing cycle, and Defendant's prices were 93% to 114% higher than competitors' rates. (Id. ¶ 24.)

         Defendant moves to dismiss Count One of Plaintiff s SAC. (Id. ¶¶ 54-66.) Plaintiff filed two previous complaints (ECF Nos. 30, 48) after this Court granted Defendant's Motions to Dismiss without prejudice (ECF Nos. 28, 44). The Court c;enied Defendant's original Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. (First Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 28.) The Court, however, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") claim, finding Plaintiff did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure[3] 9(b)'s pleading standards as to the NJCFA. (Dec. 7, 2017 Hr'g Tr. 6:7-12, ECF No. 34.) Specifically, the Court cited to Melville v. Spark Energy, Inc., No. 15-8706, 2016 WL 6775635 (P.N.J. Nov. 15, 2016), and Vitale v. U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc., No. 14-4464, 2016 WL 1060807 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2016), as setting the appropriate pleading standard, and provided Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 5:23-6:12.)

         Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff failed to satisfactorily plead an NJCFA claim. (Second Mot. to Dismiss 8-13, ECF No. 37.) In its July 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion, the Court granted Defendant's motion, finding Plaintiff again failed to provide sufficiently detailed allegations to plead an NJCFA claim. (July 11, 2018 Mem. Op. 6, ECF No. 43.) The Court further reiterated its prior determination that Melville and Vitale set forth the proper NJCFA pleading standard, and found Plaintiffs Amended Complaint failed to "allege that Plaintiff purchased electricity through Defendant based on any specific representation (s), or that price was considered by Plaintiff 'when purchasing from Defendant." (Id. at 5-6.) The Court granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to cure the deficiencies in her Amended Complaint. (Id. at 7.)

         Plaintiff subsequently filed the SAC. (See generally SAC.) Currently before the Court is Defendant's third Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs NJCFA claim. (See Def.'s Moving Br., ECF No. 54-1.) Defendant moves to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs NJCFA claim, and further moves to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs nationwide class allegations. (Id.)

         II- Legal Standard

         When analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court conducts a three-part analysis. First, the court must "tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009). Second, the court must accept as true all of a plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The court, however, must disregard any conclusory allegations proffered in the complaint. Id. at 210-11. Finally, the court must determine whether the "facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than mere possibility of misconduct," the claim is insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

         Where a plaintiff pleads fraud, however, the plaintiff "must meet a heightened pleading standard under [Rule] 9(b)." Zuniga v. Am. Home Mortg., No. 14-2973, 2016 WL 6647932, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2016). The NJCFA is subject to the heightened standard of Rule 9(b). Smojlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., 782 F.Supp.2d 84, 98 (D.N.J. 2011) (citing F.D.I.C v. Bathgate, 27 F.3d 850, 876-77 (3d Cir, 1994)). "In alleging fraud . . ., a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud . . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). "A plaintiff alleging fraud must therefore support its allegations 'with all of the essential factual background that would accompany the first paragraph of any newspaper story-that is, the who, what, when, where and how of the events at issue."' U.S. ex ret, Moore & Co., P.A. v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC, 812 F.3d 294, 307 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 3 11 F.3d 198, 217 (3d Cir. 2002)). "To satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must plead or allege the date, time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into a fraud allegation." Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2007). The purpose of Rule 9(b) is "to place the defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged, and to safeguard defendants against spurious charges of. . . fraudulent behavior." Seville Indus. Mack Corp. v. Southmost Mack Corp., 742 F.2d 786, 791 (3d Cir. 1984).

         A plaintiff seeking a claim under the NJCFA must present evidence of: (1) unlawful conduct; (2) an ascertainable loss by the plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss. Melville, 2016 WL 6775635, at *2 (citing hit 7 Union of Operating Eng'gs Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., 929 A.2d 1076, 1086 (N.J. 2007)); see also N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. Unlawful conduct includes, "any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, [or] misrepresentation ... in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate. . .." N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. A plaintiff must allege "substantial aggravating circumstances" to state a valid NJCFA claim. Neuss v. Rubi Rose, LLC, No. 16-2339, 2017 WL 2367056, at *7 (D.N.J. May 31, 2017) (citation omitted).

         Finally, under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

         III. Analysis

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.